From a Conservative to Conservatives (and any Liberals it may concern).

It has come to my attention over the past several years that there is some confusion as to what conservatism is. Generally speaking, I apply the definition of what it is to conserve to the concept of conservatism. To conserve is to moderate the use of something, usually with the goal of maximizing efficiency (to conserve a natural resource is not to deny use of it, but to use only what is necessary).

Thus, when I refer to myself as a political conservative, I would mean that I believe the government should be utilized only when and where necessary, as though it were a limited resource or the use of it somehow damaged us. Put simply - this is a belief in small government with minimal regulation and involvement in the personal lives of people.

I believe this is very similar to how a number of Conservatives (broad term) view things. However, I have noticed a strange trend - and that is to bring religiously motivated legislation in under the banner of "conservatism." While I do not want to get particularly bogged down in the details and arguments of either - the two largest "conservative values" guilty of this would be the anti-abortion and the anti-gay-marriage issue.

I'll be honest, I'm a fan of neither. But, I don't really understand where it is a "conservative" value. Even applied to religion - to apply religion only when and where necessary would be synonymous with the term "conservative." Trying to apply religious idioms to government legislation seems like a rather liberal use of religion (liberal meaning to freely apply without restraint).

Even more concerning is how this "religiously conservative" value system is directly conflicting with politically conservative principles. A political conservative wishes to keep government out of our daily lives. Why, then, should we allow ourselves to legislate personal morality in the form of banning medical procedures (abortions) and financial/legal unions (marriages - as they are seen by the State)?

If conservatives got their way and successfully shrank the government while also banning same-sex marriages and abortion - the precedent to extend the government into our daily lives has already been established. If the government can force you to bear a child once impregnated, why should a court find it unconstitutional or unreasonable to permit similar laws that also place the government laws at the dinner table?

I don't want this to turn into a bash liberals, bash conservatives, bash religion, etc. I'm a Christian - I have my own personal morals and ethics that I share with many other Christians. I am also a political conservative. I am just concerned at how it seems many people are confusing religious ideology with conservatism, and also wondering - to an extent - how this came to be (how it is rationalized).

I am curious as to how others come to their rationale, how they see that some religious views belong in a conservative government, how they disagree, or how they see a liberal government working - just please refrain from getting distracted with the typical conservative/liberal/religious bashing. We have plenty of other threads to do that in.

reply to post by Aim64C


" Conservatism is a Political and Social Philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some Conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose Modernism or Liberalism and seek a return to the way things were."

Nowhere in that one of Many Attempts to Define Conservatism is Religion mentioned as a Primary Influence in it's Philosophy . True , there are Many people of Faith who may consider themselves Conservatives for the simple Fact that it Tolerates or Perpetuates their Personal Beliefs to some extent within a Political System . Modernism or Liberalism on the other hand have been known to Challenge or even Threaten those Beliefs when it comes to vying for Power or Influence Politically in a Free Society . In a Democracy where there is the Concept of " Majority Rule " , both Isms are Free to seek adherents in order to set Policies that Determine what Direction that Society or Nation takes going into the future . In that regard , there will obvoiusly be Conflicts that must sooner or later be addressed by the Majority of Opinion .

reply to post by Aim64C


Labels and the boxes they put us in.

The same thing can be said of the false left right.

I argue that left and right, historically was referencing totalitarianism/left/statist vs anarchism/libertarianism/right.

I go so far as to state that I could care less if two homosexuals marry, that is not the problem.

The problem is that the government has stepped in and made marriage a licensed ordeal, where the government should not have any involvement in marriage. Hey, if some Church wants to marry a dog and a cat, that is all their business, it has nothing to do with me. BUT, when the government attempts to legitimize any union, be it between two males, two females, or a man and a woman, that is where everything begins to piss me off.

As for the pro life or pro death argument, you can see my stand by the use of descriptor I give it. Now, this too is where I differ from many in the pro life camp, I do not see the government should be used to espouse any moralistic endeavor, even something as egregious as this. Of course I am a diehard Constitutional Libertarian though. I do see the truth behind the argument that Life is supposed to be protected. But I do see the slippery slope argument also. Take the freedom to do with what I want with my own body, say things as illegal or even legal drugs-alcohol, tobacco etc; the government taxes activities they do not want the citizens to do. This is why I take the position I do. If one moral issue can be regulated, than thousands can be.

Anyway, thanks for the read.